I have thoughts now!

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop> wrote:
On 08/02/2016 05:05 PM, mray wrote:
During the last meeting we discussed details about how the limit works.
 I just want to voice my opinion on how the limit should work:

I strongly believe we should make the limit sacrosanct and not touch it
 *never ever*. A decision by the user to set a monthly limit trumps
"hidden costs" always, no matter if we frame the limit as "pledge limit"
 or "total limit" or whatever else. If payment fees and carried over
 matches would break the limit we need to suppress it as usual: auto
 un-match until there is no more problem.

If the user sets a limit she is free to set it higher if that is what she wants! Crowdmatching itself already is a mechanism that asks to hand over control, the remaining limit cannot be subject to be overridden by
 even more rules.

 What are your thoughts on this?

The question becomes: Is it more annoying to have pledges suspended over
a one-time carry-over or more annoying to get charged a little extra
more than the max? [...] I accept that this is a case where the absolute
hard max charge in any given month is going to just be the most
comfortable, respectable experience for patrons.

I do not agree with this line of reasoning. I think annoyance is the wrong thing to ask about. The right thing to ask about (as you point out) is comfort, which comes from *confidence* that your limit will be respected.

We can build confidence by (1) ensuring that your credit card will never be charged more than your monthly limit, **period** and/or by (2) ensuring that the handling of charges is as *consistent* as possible.

I was mostly concerned about the idea that a one-time thing (a
Like if my pledges are $9 and I have a one-time $2 carry-over with a $10
carry-over seems awkward and unfortunate. With the one-time carry-over
processed, everything can go forward next month as is, if there's no
carry-over) would affect the ongoing thing (the suspension of pledges).
max, the idea that we *suspend* a pledge just so that we process the

Robert's proposal does very well on 1, but, as Aaron notes here, less well on 2.

I suspect it varies among patrons.
[I don't have] a problem with the carry-over going over max for myself as a patron

I think that variance depends on how much people care about 1 vs 2. I'd argue that you (and I, for the record) care more about 2.

I generally oppose "hide the weirdness" in that I want people to see
behind the curtains and know what's really going on.

+1, but there's a trade-off here. Transparency helps increase people's confidence, but if behind-the-scenes is confusing, that hurts people's confidence.

That is to say, we should try to simplify and eliminate any weirdness, not hide it.

I think this is a
case where eventually having an *option* to say "allow carry-overs to go
beyond my max so as to not suspend pledges" would be something some
people would want. That said, I think it's a bad idea to get into this
right now.

I support going with Robert's view that we include fees and carry-overs
in the total when determining suspensions in order to keep everything
below the max that is set. I think that's the cleanest initial way to
go. (Yes, that is a change from what I expressed in the meeting)

I agree that an option would make sense eventually. It's likely my preference for 2 speaking, but I'd reverse the phrasing of the option (eg, "Enable strict limit"). I also agree that it is not needed for launch.

I think the cleanest initial way to go is "No more than $limit will be added to your outstanding balance each month." That is, carried over matches should *not* be counted towards your monthly limit, but fees should, in their entirety.

I can elaborate on a couple of these points, but I'm already rambling, so I'll save that for IRC or meeting unless anyone wants clarification on a specific point here.

Discuss mailing list

Reply via email to